Case Citation: A.C. No.

10671

Case Title: JOSEPH C. CHUA v. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO

Petitioner: JOSEPH C. CHUA

Respondent: ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO

Syllabus Topic: Rule 19.01 - Fair and Honest

Doctrine: Rule 19.01 - Fair and Honest

Case Summary:
This case sought the disbarment of Atty. De Castro for his capricious and continuous unethical practice of law in
deliberately delaying, impeding and obstructing the administration of justice in his strategy for the defense
of his client in Civil Case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City

The Facts of the Case:
● Chua alleged that his company, Nemar Computer Resources Corp. (NCRC),
filed a collection case against Dr. Concepcion Aguila Memorial College,
represented by its counsel, Atty. De Castro.
● According to Chua, since the filing of the collection case on June 15, 2006, it
took more than five (5) years to present one witness of NCRC due to Atty.
De Castro's propensity to seek postponements of agreed hearing dates for
unmeritorious excuses.
● Atty. De Castro's flimsy excuses would vary from simple absence without
notice, to claims of alleged ailment unbacked by any medical certificates, to
claims of not being ready despite sufficient time given to prepare, to the
sending of a representative lawyer who would profess non-knowledge of the
case to seek continuance, to a plea for the postponement without providing
any reason therefore.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Castro violated Rule 19.01 when he continuously delayed
the administration of justice when he provided dishonest reason to such proceedings

Supreme Court Ruling: Yes. Court finds the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to be proper
under the circumstances. "Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to
assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay,
impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers' duty."

As shown by the records, Atty. De Castro violated his oath of office in his handling
of the collection case against his client. Chua was able to show that, through Atty. De
Castro's atrocious maneuvers, he successfully delayed the disposition of the case,
causing injury and prejudice to NCRC.

Other notes: WHEREFORE, Atty. Arturo M. De Castro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective from notice, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.